The recent United States military conquest in Iraq is a subject that has drawn much attention from political onlookers who wonder about the legality and the motives of the war. As Americans were given unclear reasons for the war, more and more speculation came as to why U.S. military forces were there in the first place. There are many reasons why the United States’ military campaign in Iraq does not make sense. Some reasons lead to the belief of its moral inconsistency while others point to relational nightmares. What is certain is the fact there are wonderful arguments against the war and limited rebuttals to those arguments. A December 2005 CNN poll showed that a majority at fifty-one percent of people in America were against the war in Iraq. The reasons against the war include its incompatibility with U.N. regulations, its appearance as a Christian crusade against the world of Islam that inhabits much of the Middle Eastern world, and the ongoing question about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and surrounding areas of the Middle East.
Reason One:
One of the primary justifications for the United States’ military invasion of the country of Iraq was based upon the fact of information that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and more importantly, possessed the capability of using those weapons against the United States of America. In order to convince congress, the American people, and the International community that an invasion of Iraq was a worthwhile project, President Bush spoke about the growing nuclear capability of the country of Iraq. Just prior to the invasion, President Bush stated that “Saddam Hussein must be prevented from acquiring or developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons – a.k.a. weapons of mass destruction” (Bush). At the time leading up to the military occupation of Iraq, the United Nations had designated experts to go into Iraq and to investigate whether or not Sadaam Hussein had acquired nuclear or biological weapons. This group of skilled experts found nothing and were repeatedly unsuccessful on subsequent trips to Iraq in search of the weapons. Without factual basis or the approval of the United Nations, the United States decided that Iraq had been hiding those weapons and that we must be accountable for going in and finding them. Almost four years later, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in the nation, and the administration has laid out different reasons for the war which are not so cut and dry. As it stands, it is clear that Hussein was in no way in violation of United Nations resolution 1441 which was passed in order to mandate certain activities between Iraq and neighbor country, Kuwait.
Reason Two:
Another exorbitantly important reason why the United States was wrong in going to war in Iraq is because of the clear dissatisfaction it caused with the United Nations. The United Nations is successful because of its ability to work together with countries for peace. When one country goes beyond the organization and circumvents the peace process by creating war, it undermines the ability of the United Nations to conduct international business. By waging war in this way, it put a smear near America’s name and affected the international perception of our country’s foreign policy. We alienated our closest allies and have since placed every country in the World on notice that they are either with us or against us. This ultimatum has placed tension in the international community, put pressure on foreign dignitaries who have no choice but to comply, and has caused more than a few displaced leaders because of people who are similarly unhappy with their countries’ leadership during this time of conflict. President Bush’s war campaign into Iraq is not justified under article fifty-one of the United Nations charter. That article, which gives countries the right to invade another country in order to protect themselves, can not be used to justify this case. In this war, The United States of America was in no clear and present danger. Our strike, which was described by government figureheads as a preemptive move to counteract the chance of Iraqi aggression, falls well beyond the boundaries of fair self defensive tactics.
Reason Three:
The war in Iraq has a certain applicable appearance within the international community. Some have even gone so far as to describe the conflict as an American led, Christian crusade against the Muslim World. To put ourselves in clear juxtaposition to the Islamic World is not only foolish, it is immoral. The old crusades that marked early medieval history involved Christian warriors going into the holy city in an attempt to slaughter any who did not follow Jesus Christ, and to convert those who would do so. In this case, our aim has been to liberate a people of Islamic radicalism and from that, instill a sense of pride in country. The only problem with our philosophy is that we are attempting to instill in those countries a sense of pride in American ways. These are the same American and western ways that they have all grown to hate and rebuke. To force our religion, culture, or government down their throats is a failed attempt at foreign diplomacy and a nightmare in foreign policy. While this military campaign may not have the same clear and distinguishable objectives as the previous crusades, its appearance within the international community and to those in the country of Iraq is very similar to a religious campaign of conversion.
Objection 1:
There are some who will argue adamantly against the reasons that have been stated above. In response to the questions about weapons of mass destruction, they will state that Hussein actually possessed the capability to make these weapons and has still hidden them in bunkers or moveable fields. They will multiply the threat level of these weapons by five or even ten fold.
Reply 1:
If this were the case, however, it is foreseeable that the advanced intelligence of the United States and the expertise of our armed forces would have uncovered something by this point. For a threat that was reportedly so potent, their weapons are mighty quiet. All of the factual findings have refuted the quick action opinions that led us to partake in this military conflict in Iraq.
Objection 2:
The country’s decision to go against the rest of the international community and to circumvent the United Nations is something that is inexplicable. However, proponents of the war will state that the American forces give the United Nations all of its potency, anyway. We drive that organization, they will say.
Reply 2:
While this may be partially true, it is the cooperation of those nations who make up its membership that drives the success of this organization. Economic sanctions and problems with allies and alliances are both things that the United Nations can offer, and to go against this organization that we helped to create is something that will not be without consequence in the international community.
Objection 3:
Proponents of the war are known to support American and western ways and to think that those ways should be imposed upon the entire globe. They state that the people of Iraq are thirsty for a drink from the fountain of democracy. They believe the people of Iraq to be calling out to us for liberation and that remains their justification of this conflict.
Reply 3:
The people of Iraq, however, have grown to hate these ways, and forcing it down their throats will only make it worse. Our crusade to change the Islamic world is not something that the Muslim people will take laying down. Just as we love our culture, our religion, and our traditions, they hold steady to the old ways of the Quaran.
The war in Iraq is a bad move on many levels. While proponents of the war will argue their points to a near death, they misunderstand that the war violates many different United States and International policies. We have gone outside of the bounds of the United Nations and attempted to create a puppet state of Americanism in the middle of Middle East. We have been made to look foolish by giving false information about weapons of mass destruction and our credibility has been tarnished within the international community. The reasons against the war are many, while the arguments for it are significantly less in number and with less support.
